Behavior of circular stainless steel stub columns internally strengthened by longitudinal carbon steel bars

2019 ◽  
Vol 199 ◽  
pp. 109617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfarabi M. Sharif ◽  
Galal M. Al-Mekhlafi ◽  
Mohammed A. Al-Osta
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Carbon Steel ◽  
Steel Bars ◽  
Stub Columns

scholarly journals Bond-Slip Behavior between Stainless Steel Rebars and Concrete

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 979 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margherita Pauletta ◽  
Nicola Rovere ◽  
Norbert Randl ◽  
Gaetano Russo
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Reinforced Concrete ◽  
Carbon Steel ◽  
Service Life ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Concrete Structures ◽  
Reinforced Concrete Structures ◽  
Bond Behavior ◽  
Steel Bars ◽  
Steel Rebars

Maintenance of reinforced concrete structures is a prevailing topic, especially with regard to lifeline structures and bridges, many of which are now designed with a service life beyond 100 years. Reinforcement made of ordinary (carbon) steel may corrode in aggressive environments. Stainless steel, being much more resistant to corrosion, is a valid solution to facilitate the protection of the works, increasing the service life and reducing the need for repair and maintenance. Despite the potential for stainless steel to reduce maintenance costs, studies investigating the influence of stainless steel on the behavior of reinforced concrete structures are limited. This study investigated the bond behavior of stainless steel rebars by means of experimental tests on reinforced concrete specimens with different concrete cover thicknesses, concrete strengths, and bar diameters. In each case, identical specimens with carbon steel reinforcement were tested for comparison. The failure modes of the specimens were examined, and a bond stress–slip relationship for stainless steel bars was established. This research shows that the bond behavior of stainless steel rebars is comparable to that of carbon steel bars.

scholarly journals Bond of reinforcement in concrete with different types of corroded bars

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assem Adel Abdel Aal Hassan
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Fly Ash ◽  
Carbon Steel ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Silica Fume ◽  
Concrete Mixture ◽  
Concrete Mixtures ◽  
Steel Bars ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Four Levels

Repair and rehabilitation of existing structures is becoming a major part of the present construction activities. Corrosion of reinforcement is a major contributing factor to the deterioration of reinforced concrete steel structure. Corrosion of reinforcing steel severely influences the bond at the steel-concrete interface. The aim of this research is to study the effect of corrosion on bond strength using pullout specimens and four different types of concrete having three different types of steel embedded. The study is conducted for four levels of corrosion ranging from uncorroded to severely corroded specimens. The four concrete types used were fly ash concrete mixture, silica fume concrete mixture, normal Portland Cement (NPC) concrete mixture with a water/cement ratio (w/c) of 0.32 and a 0.52 w/c ratio concrete mixture. Each type of these concretes has three different types of steel embedded in them: regular carbon, stainless, and epoxy coated steel bars. The relationship between the bond strength, weight loss and the rib profile loss is studied. The results showed preference for using regular carbon steel bars than stainless steel bars, stainless steel bars exhibited badly damaged shape with lots of voids compared to the regular carbon steel bars. Also, the bond strength for corroded and un-corroded stainless steel bars was lower than that of the regular carbon steel bars. Low levels of corrosion (about 0.5 to 1% of mass loss) were noted to improve the bond strength slightly when using either regular carbon steel bars or stainless steel bars embedded in any type of the concrete mixtures. However, bond strength decreases rapidly with an increase in the corrosion level for both regular carbon and stainless steel bars in any type of the concrete mixtures used. The use of supplementary cementing materials (SCM) such as fly ash and silica fume was very effective in delaying the corrosion process compared to that of NPC concrete with no SCM. Also, the bond performance of any steel bars embedded in NPC concrete with low w/c (0.32) was found to be superior to that of a concrete mexture with high w/c (0.52). However, the bond strength for F.A and S.F concrete was slightly lower than that for the NPC concrete with 0.32 w/c ratio.

scholarly journals Bond of reinforcement in concrete with different types of corroded bars

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assem Adel Abdel Aal Hassan
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Fly Ash ◽  
Carbon Steel ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Silica Fume ◽  
Concrete Mixture ◽  
Concrete Mixtures ◽  
Steel Bars ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Four Levels

Repair and rehabilitation of existing structures is becoming a major part of the present construction activities. Corrosion of reinforcement is a major contributing factor to the deterioration of reinforced concrete steel structure. Corrosion of reinforcing steel severely influences the bond at the steel-concrete interface. The aim of this research is to study the effect of corrosion on bond strength using pullout specimens and four different types of concrete having three different types of steel embedded. The study is conducted for four levels of corrosion ranging from uncorroded to severely corroded specimens. The four concrete types used were fly ash concrete mixture, silica fume concrete mixture, normal Portland Cement (NPC) concrete mixture with a water/cement ratio (w/c) of 0.32 and a 0.52 w/c ratio concrete mixture. Each type of these concretes has three different types of steel embedded in them: regular carbon, stainless, and epoxy coated steel bars. The relationship between the bond strength, weight loss and the rib profile loss is studied. The results showed preference for using regular carbon steel bars than stainless steel bars, stainless steel bars exhibited badly damaged shape with lots of voids compared to the regular carbon steel bars. Also, the bond strength for corroded and un-corroded stainless steel bars was lower than that of the regular carbon steel bars. Low levels of corrosion (about 0.5 to 1% of mass loss) were noted to improve the bond strength slightly when using either regular carbon steel bars or stainless steel bars embedded in any type of the concrete mixtures. However, bond strength decreases rapidly with an increase in the corrosion level for both regular carbon and stainless steel bars in any type of the concrete mixtures used. The use of supplementary cementing materials (SCM) such as fly ash and silica fume was very effective in delaying the corrosion process compared to that of NPC concrete with no SCM. Also, the bond performance of any steel bars embedded in NPC concrete with low w/c (0.32) was found to be superior to that of a concrete mexture with high w/c (0.52). However, the bond strength for F.A and S.F concrete was slightly lower than that for the NPC concrete with 0.32 w/c ratio.

scholarly journals Axial Compression Capacity of Concrete Columns Reinforced With Corrosion-Resistant Metallic Reinforcement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Wright ◽  
Chris Pantelides
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Carbon Steel ◽  
Axial Compression ◽  
Concrete Columns ◽  
Concrete Cover ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Accelerated Corrosion ◽  
Corrosion Resistant ◽  
Compression Performance ◽  
Steel Bars

Abstract Axial compression performance of concrete columns reinforced with 2304 duplex stainless bars and spirals, carbon steel bars and spirals, and 316L stainless steel clad bars, in varying combinations is examined when the columns are exposed to corrosion. Two groups of columns were investigated: a control group, and a group submerged in a 5.0% by weight chloride solution subjected to accelerated corrosion. A relatively high corrosion rate of 8.5 μA/mm2 was used. After 60 days of corrosion the columns were tested to failure under axial compression. In terms of mass loss per unit of corrosion energy, columns reinforced with stainless steel spirals and either solid stainless or stainless clad vertical bars were 197% more corrosion resistant than carbon steel. Bars made with 2304 stainless steel and 316L stainless clad materials developed localized pitting corrosion that led to degradation of the concrete cover and a larger drop in axial compression than carbon steel reinforced columns. However, the all-carbon steel reinforced columns reached lower failure displacements and a corroded carbon steel reinforced column was the only column to experience sudden failure prior to reaching its theoretical maximum axial compression capacity. Axial compression capacity of the columns in both the control and corroded conditions was modeled using concrete confinement models that produced very good agreement with the experimental results.

scholarly journals Axial Compression Capacity of Concrete Columns Reinforced with Corrosion-Resistant Metallic Reinforcement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Wright ◽  
Chris Pantelides
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Carbon Steel ◽  
Axial Compression ◽  
Concrete Columns ◽  
Concrete Cover ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Accelerated Corrosion ◽  
Corrosion Resistant ◽  
Compression Performance ◽  
Steel Bars

Abstract Axial compression performance of concrete columns reinforced with 2304 solid stainless bars and spirals, carbon steel bars and spirals, and 316L stainless steel clad bars is examined after the columns are exposed to severe corrosion. Two groups of columns were investigated: a control group, and a group submerged in a 5.0% by weight chloride solution subjected to accelerated corrosion. A relatively high impressed current density of 8.5 μA/mm2 was used and after 60 days of accelerated corrosion the columns were tested to failure under axial compression. In terms of mass loss per unit of corrosion energy, columns reinforced with stainless steel spirals and either solid stainless or stainless clad vertical bars were 197% more corrosion resistant than carbon steel. Bars made with 2304 solid stainless steel and 316L stainless clad materials developed localized pitting corrosion that led to degradation of the concrete cover and a larger drop in axial compression than carbon steel reinforced columns. However, the carbon steel reinforced columns reached lower failure displacements and a corroded carbon steel reinforced column was the only column to experience sudden failure prior to reaching its theoretical maximum axial compression capacity. Axial compression capacity of the columns in both the control and corroded conditions was modeled using concrete confinement models that produced good agreement with the experimental results.

Study on concrete-filled stainless steel–carbon steel tubular (CFSCT) stub columns under compression

2013 ◽  
Vol 63 ◽  
pp. 125-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xu Chang ◽  
Zhong Liang Ru ◽  
Wei Zhou ◽  
Yong-Bin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Carbon Steel ◽  
Stub Columns

scholarly journals Axial compression capacity of concrete columns reinforced with corrosion-resistant metallic reinforcement

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Wright ◽  
Chris P. Pantelides
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Carbon Steel ◽  
Axial Compression ◽  
Concrete Columns ◽  
Concrete Cover ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Accelerated Corrosion ◽  
Corrosion Resistant ◽  
Compression Performance ◽  
Steel Bars

AbstractAxial compression performance of concrete columns reinforced with 2304 solid stainless bars and spirals, carbon steel bars and spirals, and 316 L stainless steel clad bars is examined after the columns are exposed to severe corrosion. Two groups of columns were investigated: a control group, and a group submerged in a 5.0% by weight chloride solution subjected to accelerated corrosion. A relatively high impressed current density of 8.5 μA/mm2 was used and after 60 days of accelerated corrosion the columns were tested to failure under axial compression. In terms of mass loss per unit of corrosion energy, columns reinforced with stainless steel spirals and either solid stainless or stainless clad vertical bars were 197% more corrosion resistant than carbon steel. Bars made with 2304 solid stainless steel and 316 L stainless clad materials developed localized pitting corrosion that led to degradation of the concrete cover and a larger drop in axial compression than carbon steel reinforced columns. However, the carbon steel reinforced columns reached lower failure displacements and a corroded carbon steel reinforced column was the only column to experience sudden failure prior to reaching its theoretical maximum axial compression capacity. Axial compression capacity of the columns in both the control and corroded conditions was modeled using concrete confinement models that produced good agreement with the experimental results.

12.06: Numerical analysis of stainless steel, concrete encased and carbon steel double skin tubular stub columns

ce/papers ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 3509-3518
Author(s):  
Raphaella Oliveira de Araújo ◽  
Luciano Rodrigues Ornelas de Lima ◽  
Pedro Colmar Gonçalves da Silva Vellasco ◽  
André Tenchini da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Numerical Analysis ◽  
Carbon Steel ◽  
Double Skin ◽  
Stub Columns
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document